Nicholson, the flute master

Much seems to be said and written about Nicholson in wooden, 19th century English flute circles. Olwell makes a model named after him and the custom flute he helped design. I came across this arrangement of a Scotch Air, “Roslin Castle” by Nicholson himself. Apparently he played this exactly as written to ‘enthusiastic applause’ and ‘rapturously encored’.

It’s in F minor which seems a terribly tricky key to play in with the simple system flute. I can’t imagine how to play this on a Boehm flute, let alone a simple system flute. Anyways, I’m blown away by this. Nicholson must have truly been a genius flute player.

Here’s the link to the sheetmusic:
http://www.oldflutes.com/articles/roslincastle.htm

Jason

Oh my!

Olwell makes a model named after him and the custom flute he helped design.

Who is the “he” in “he helped design”?

as i understood the phrase you quote, it meant that the general characteristics (i.e. hole size) of olwell’s nicholson flute are based on the flutes from the 19th century which nicholson favored, and either designed or took credit for designing.

I could be mistaken, Cocus, but I thought I read that Nicholson worked with a prominent flute maker to fashion a flute according to his specs. Then I assumed that Olwell modeled his Nicholson after that. I could very be mistaken, and certainly there are greater flute historians in our midst that could speak much more authoritatively than I.

I mainly was just marvelling at the virtuosity of the piece because it illustrates to me the vast potential of the simple flute. I have a tough enough time playing in D and G let alone Aflat/Fmin and playing chromatically with all that ornamentation, polyphonics, dynamics…astounding really.

Flutes can be of wood, but perhaps flute circles could not be wooden.

:wink:

oh do go with metal!
Ivory isn’t much help and the dang thing’s already wood!
By all means put something substantial around it to hold it together. :astonished:


aren’t they called rings? :confused:

Hey that’s pretty close to the version I play :astonished:

Daiv, have you mastered your Nickolson tune yet?
I think most modern flute makers don’t follow the Nickolson’s Improved design very closely, as the original are quite a challenge to play in tune. It was said that Nickolson was able to blow his flutes in tune by shear force of his playing! The original Nickolson’s Improved flutes made by Prowse, that I have played Have a very dynamic tone, and play well with themselves, but there is a lot of errors in the tuning, at 440. Maybe a lower tuning work better? The flutes are very elegant.

You can obtain facsimiles of Nicholson’s tutor “A School for the Flute”, Vols 1 & II, 1836 from:

Peter H Bloom, 29 Newbury St Somerville, Mass. 02144;
Ph (617) 776-6512.

He starts off in the key of C, moving though the sharps and then the flats. By page 43, he’ll have you playing in six flats (Gb). Vol II is devoted to all the tricky stuff.

Terry

That’s a cutting point! Perhaps that’s why few of Nicholson’s own flutes have survived? They’re all in bits :laughing: ! Went to pieces at what he demanded of 'em. Sheer nonsense of course (on my part) but perhaps Jon is feeling sheepish about his spelling? Mind he doesn’t fleece you! Or perhaps (indulging in stereotypes) Terry might like to give the Oz view on shearing? (Sorry folks, I was working till 04:40 this morning, have just got up to watch the rugby and am feeling a bit woolly!)

Olwell’s Nicholson is no more like a historic Nicholson than his Rudall is a Rudall or his Pratten a Pratten. These are just names he uses to distinguish between small, medium, and large hole flutes.
Olwell has played and measured thousands of flutes - and made over a thousand, all considered. At this point his designs are as much his own as any flute can be, as is the case with Martin Doyle, Hammy, Wilkes, McGee and most of the older established makers.

no, i havent! i left all my sheet music at home and keep forgetting to bring it. what’s even worse, is that last time i went home, i left my gisborne and my copley headjoint! so i’m just stuck here with a hunk of silver and an uninspired, machine made headjoint. i refuse to put my mouth up to something that isnt wood.

nicholson must have been the bees knees to be able to play the music he wrote. i can sorta manage some of the simpler parts of that tune and other ones on my gisborne, but then i put a boehm flute up to my face and it’s the easiest thing in the world!

i could see blowing it all in tune if you work on it enough. the strange thing that nicholson does with pressure against the face actually helps a lot with tuning. one time i was playing something by nicholson, and i hit a second octave c natural, but fingered a b, and lipped it up into tune without even thinking. after a while you get used to the fact that nothing is going to be the note you want it to be and you rely totally on your lips and face pressure to get it. too bad it’s so damn hard…

don’t be amazed at the difficulty of the tune.
The instrument and its practitioners were quite accustomed to playing tunes such as this…and with the various fingerings.

We have become lazy and accustomed to playing simple tunes – in the very easy keys of G & D and their relative minors.
Irish music – flute playing in particular – is just now getting into playing tunes in more interesting keys as Dminor and Eb.

If you’d like to enjoy the simple system flute, look at music by Devienne and Quantz and Mozart and…etc…and play the tunes. You will see that flutes were quite the impressive instrument.

Chris Norman and Niall Keegan are likely the most expressed practitioners of the instrument’s legitimate boundaries…though I favor Norman’s smooth approach best.

dm

Hear hear, D.M. Quite.

Have a listen to Stephen Preston and Lisa Beznosiuk playing Kohlert’s Valse des Fleurs on 8-key flutes on the old Preston’s Pocket album of music for two flutes through the ages (amongst other gems thereon). I believe Brian Berryman is another player of 8-key (and ITM) who explores the Classical repertory, and although most of the classically trained period instrument players concentrate on Baroque and Classical period music, 1 to 4-key instruments, there is a demand for 8-key use in the later Classical and early Romantic repertory and I believe there are players out there who supply that demand - the period instrument/historically informed performance brigade have been looking at C19th music since the late 1980s!

It’s a bee in my bonnet, I know, but it sometimes needs re-stating: the “simple system flute”, i.e. the 8-key “concert” flute, was originally an orchestral, classical instrument and fully used as such, the last professional players upon it ending their careers as late as the 1920s! It is/was NOT “the Irish flute”. By whatever socio-economic mechanism, it trickled down/got hungover as the mainstay of traditional music flute playing in Ireland from the mid C19th as the orchestral world gradually moved on. Remember, however, the general huge popularity of the flute as an amateur’s instrument throughout Britain right through the C18th and C19th - hence the large supply of low-middling quality “dilettante” 1-8 key instruments.

The modern keyless or randomly “custom-keyed” conoid bodied flute built especially for modern ITM by current makers based on period models is essentially a new development (sure, its just a variant manifestation of something ancient - as is the Boehm flute) that has not previously existed in quite that form in the developmental typology of the transverse flute (they may look rather like Renaissance or Baroque flutes, but are actually rather different in design parameters and performance).

The title “simple system” really belongs ONLY to 4-8 key flutes of late C18th to late C19th design (and copies thereof). Modern keyless flutes should not really be called by that title and may perhaps legitimately be termed “Irish” flutes as they have been developed specifically to supply the modern ITM market, whereas genuine antique simple system flutes should not really be termed “Irish” as they were not designed or sold for that use, but rather for classical music, and very few of them were ever made in Ireland.

ITM on the flute developed (presumably from pipes and whistle playing as well as Baroque style flutes) on the 8-key flute, regardless of whether the keys were much used, and again, I think modern players of keyless flutes tend to be rather rejectionist about that fact and not to recognise that their (certainly lovely and very usable) instruments are a modern development that is to some extent redefining the modern playing of ITM on the flute.

I can’t do it myself, not having the classical training or the persistence and commitment to practice and technical development required, but playing advanced classical repertory on the 8-keyed flute is certainly possible, though doubtless there are works written specifically for capacities of the Boehm flute that the 8-keyer, however virtuosic its player, would struggle to achieve or simply could not do. But then, there are things do-able on 8-key or even Baroque flute that a Boehm flute cannot emulate, so… horses for courses! Nicholson and his ilk were great virtuosi by any standards, and stretched the technique on the instrument, indeed driving the technological development of the instrument. Nicholson would doubtless have done that whatever era he had appeared in, just as e.g. Paganini did for the fiddle or Liszt for the piano. We poor ITM players are amazed not only by the abilities of Matt Molloy or Jean-Michel Veillon etc. but also (if we care to look/listen) by the top Boehm players like Jimmy Galway etc. or the top period fluters like Preston or Barthold Kuijken. All of these top-line players are blessed with extraordinary talent, but have also grafted very hard from young ages to acquire their level of virtuosity. They can do things the rest of us who haven’t done that level of work can only marvel at.

If you’re talking about pushing technical boundaries of the instrument, I would agree with the endorsements of Norman, Veillon et al. But those dudes wouldn’t exactly be the musicians I’d endorse for their playing of ITM if you get what I mean.

There are a few apples and oranges comparisons being made here, and at the end of the day it doesn’t quite work to try to measure ITM with the yardstick of another genre. I think there is a tendency to do that without understanding or considering the nature of the music to begin with.

I sure hate it when Norman gets such a bad rap.

Some people really need to hear him…really hear him.

His performances are easily some of the best ITM out there…he does nothing differently…just better.

I’m sure many people will disagree and argue their heads off.

Too bad, really.

Norman gets the rap…but Keegan gets the praise as ITM. Not sure how that actually happens when NK’s stuff is past the edge of ITM.

I’ve always said Norman is likely the closest we’ll ever hear to what Nicholson probably sounded like.

dm

From what I’ve heard of Keegan, his playing is way over the top and IMO in quite poor taste. I don’t understand the appeal.

I’ve always said Norman is likely the closest we’ll ever hear to what Nicholson probably sounded like.

That could very well be true, but what does Nicholson have to do with ITM? (edit) Of course it’s relevant to this thread but I mean in the context of Eldarion’s post, to which I assume you’re replying. On the other hand, Norman doesn’t sound to me like he’s “muscling” his flute into tune as Nicholson supposedly did. Who knows, though? Everyone who’s ever heard Nicholson is long-since dead and we all know that reviewers/fans/etc are inclined to stretch the truth somewhat.

I’ve got nothing against Norman, but I agree with Eldarion here. Perhaps I haven’t heard Norman in the right context, but I can only judge him by his recordings, which is a major way in which he presents himself to the world. Top notch musician, of course, but the irish tunes are missing something. On the contrary I like his playing of scottish and french canadian tunes quite a bit, but I can’t say that I have knowledge of those styles comparable to my knowledge of ITM and maybe if I did, I might find something lacking there, too. Speculation. Maybe that’s really his area of expertise.

David and Jem,

I understand what you’re saying. But to say that most flute players of Nicholson’s day could play that tune with that level of virtuosity seems hyperbolic. And to compare top classical performers to average ITM fluters is a bit of false comparison. It takes total commitment to play at that level, 4-8 hours of practice daily, and still very few could or can play that Nicholson arrangement in its entirety and play it well. That’s why, I believe, ITM is a past-time (albeit a passionate one, obsession might be a better term for it) for most of us, i.e. folk music. I tend to play 1+ hour a day–great for what I’m after, but nowhere near the time necessary to reach a level of mastery. Also, Mozart is well known for his dislike of the flute (mainly, I believe for its pitch problems), and only wrote his most famous flute concertos because a royal patron was a flute player (in fact, the D major was originally an oboe concerto in C–so much for Mozart being inspired by the flute). Mozart transposed it to D and wrote the other in G because those were the best keys for the simple system flute then, as well as now. And there is the fact that the Boehm flute became the juggernaut of the modern flute world, in large part because it’s easier to play in tune, at faster tempos, and in many more keys than its predecessors.

I still firmly believe that Nicholson’s achievements on the simple system flute are far beyond the norm, then as well as now.

PS–I love the wood, non-Boehm flute, am devoted to it, dislike playing my silver flute. And I am definitely not an expert. Just enjoy discussions.

Don’t think either DM or I did so, or even accidentally implied it! I know I was talking chiefly about the capacities of the instrument rather than the player - mentioning players more to illustrate what the instrument is capable of in the hands of people who do work that hard/are blessed with that much talent. Given that, although your assessment of the playing levels and ambitions of most of us here is doubtless accurate, the comment is somewhat off target as no-one was suggesting that we all ought (or want or ought to want) to be able to accomplish such things - only that it is do-able if you really want to do it!

The Mozart thing is also a perpetually highly debatable one - sure, he said those things, but then he was a constant rude joker (and chancer!) who poked fun at many things and people and was exasperated by those whose talent did not reach towards his own or who did not appreciate him fully; and look at what he demanded of flutes in his orchestral writing, where he had no reticence in using them prominently.

I certainly wouldn’t argue with your statement of the obvious about the reasons for the dominance of the Boehm system, however, nor that Nicholson was exceptional (I did bracket him with Paganini and Liszt!).